New land-use change scenarios for Brazil: Refining global SSPs with a regional spatially-explicit allocation model.

The future of land use and cover change in Brazil, particularly due to deforestation and forest restoration processes, is critical for the future of global climate and biodiversity, given the richness of its five biomes. These changes in Brazil depend on the interlink between global factors due to its role as one of the main exporters of commodities globally and the national to local institutional, socioeconomic, and biophysical contexts. Aiming to develop scenarios that consider the balance between global (e.g., GDP growth, population growth, per capita consumption of agricultural products, international trade policies, and climatic conditions) and local factors (e.g., land use, agrarian structure, agricultural suitability, protected areas, distance to roads, and other infrastructure projects), a new set of land-use change scenarios for Brazil were developed that aligned with the global structure Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and Representative Concentration Pathway (RCPs) developed by the global change research community. The narratives of the new scenarios align with SSP1/RCP 1.9 (Sustainable development scenario), SSP2/RCP 4.5 (Middle of the road scenario), and SSP3/RCP 7.0 (Strong inequality scenario). The scenarios were developed by combining the LuccME spatially explicit land change allocation modeling framework and the INLAND surface model to incorporate the climatic variables in water deficit. Based on detailed biophysical, socioeconomic, and institutional factors for each biome in Brazil, we have created spatially explicit scenarios until 2050, considering the following classes: forest vegetation, grassland vegetation, planted pasture, agriculture, a mosaic of small land uses, and forestry. The results aim to detail global models regionally. They could be used regionally to support decision-making and enrich the global analysis.

1 Introduction

Land available for agricultural expansion is an increasingly scarce resource in several global regions [1, 2]. The expansion of the agricultural frontier, which is currently concentrated in the tropics [3, 4], affects the regulation of the hydrological and climatic regime, local socioeconomic relations and generates great biodiversity loss. This context could be aggravated if we consider population increase and projected demand for food in 2050 (25% and 40%, respectively) [5].

In this context, global models and scenarios, particularly those quantified with Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs), which represent complex interactions and feedback on a long-term scale between the socioeconomic system (including climate policies) and the natural system [6], which play a key role in helping us to understand the impacts and consequences of agricultural expansion in different regions. In Brazil, for example, this process over the last few decades has contributed to the country consolidating worldwide as one of the main commodity-exporting countries, whether agricultural or mineral. One of the key impacts of this process is the loss of natural vegetation in the Amazon and Cerrado biomes. On the other hand, other areas in Brazil, such as the Atlantic Forest, are undergoing a forest transition [7]. Integrating and understanding the factors that influence land use and land cover change (LUCC) in Brazil in different regions are important for defining indicators for guiding public policies to establish sustainable development strategies.

Global models and scenarios may fail to capture the regional dynamics of land change. They do not always include local factors, regional narratives, the national political and institutional framework, and the dynamics and magnitude of intraregional factors that determine the demand for land. In addition, the information used in most global models is aggregated for comparability across large regions, such as continents [8-10]. In this sense, Dala-Nora [8] points out that a balance between global and local factors is necessary, as the integration of these complex factors that act on a global and regional scale through extensive flow networks can change the structure and consistency of land-use change scenarios. Furthermore, van Vuuren [11] pointed out that studies that examine phenomena of a more precise scale should consider more detailed information (e.g., geographic characteristics, land use patterns, or the location of cities).

In this paper, we present a new set of land change scenarios for Brazil, aligned with the global Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and Representative Concentration Pathway (RCPs) framework developed by the global change research community [9, 12–16] to support the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These scenarios are being widely used and downscaled to several regions (e.g., [16-20]), and adopting them as a reference allows us to link our scenarios to the global context better. The regionalized scenarios developed here aim to represent the diversity of processes linked to land-use change in the Brazilian territory. The modeling approach considers Brazilian biomes’ interregional socio-ecological differences, including a more detailed analysis scale, without losing global relations. We modeled changes in natural vegetation, large and small-scale agricultural lands, and planted forests. These land change processes are directly related to regional and local factors. The global context still plays a significant role in these processes.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Overall conceptualization and structure

For the development of regionalized scenarios, three levels or spatial scales were considered: (i) global: comprises information from around the world and seeks to integrate into regional scenarios the contribution of factors such as GDP growth, population growth, per capita consumption of agricultural products, international trade policies, and climatic conditions; (ii) regional or national: corresponds to the Brazilian territory and seeks to integrate intraregional drivers such as national demand, institutions, and governance, economic and technological development, etc.; and (iii) local, which aggregates spatial drivers to the local, regional scale, such as land use, agrarian structure, agricultural suitability, protected areas, distance to roads, and other infrastructure projects. The integration between these scales makes it possible to fill in the gaps of models that consider only one of these scales.

The regional scenarios were quantified using the LuccME modeling framework [21]. LuccME is a spatially explicit dynamic modeling structure for LUCCs developed at the National Institute for Space Research (INPE). This approach makes it possible to delineate the spatial patterns of land use and land cover classes based on the components of (a) Demand, that is, the amount/intensity of changes in each use that is intended to be allocated over time [22, 23]; (b) Potential, which corresponds to the adequacy that a given cell in the cellular space has to change with each step of time, complete. In this case, using the spatial lag regression model [23-25] and (c) Allocation that spatially and interactively distributes the LUCC according to the previous components (demand and potential), based on competition between classes of land use in each cell. The land use and cover data used in the LuccMEBR were obtained from IBGE [26]. We chose this database because of its national scope, periodicity (2000, 2010, 2012, and 2014), and classes. In addition, IBGE data are consistent with other regional mappings such as TerraClass http://www.inpe.br/cra/projetos_pesquisas/dados_terraclass.php and MapBiomas https://plataforma.brasil.mapbiomas.org/.

For global scenarios, we use the projections generated by the Integrated Model to Assess the Global Environment (IMAGE) [27, 28], representing different combinations of SSPs and RCPs. The integration across scales to generate the scenarios is as follows: First, we defined the land change classes. Table 1 presents a description of the original and reclassified IBGE classes used for the LUCC modeling and the equivalent classes in the IMAGE model. The 13 classes from IBGE [26] were reclassified, similar grouping classes to reduce the complexity of the model. Second, we used the quantity of change projected by IMAGE for the selected combinations of SSPs/RCPs to define the quantity of change for each land use (LuccME demand component), as detailed in Section 2.3. Third, we developed local narratives related to the selected SSPs/RCPs. We parameterized the LuccME allocation and potential components using a comprehensive socioeconomic, institutional, and biophysical driver’s database based on these narratives. Fourth, climate projection data for some of the RCPs were used to generate water deficit data using the integrated surface process model (INLAND) model. Fig 1 illustrates the integration/translation structure across scales to generate regionalized scenarios.

Table 1

Land use and land cover classes.

Original land use and cover classes—IBGE	LuccME/BR reclassification	Original land use and cover classes—IMAGE	Description (Source: IBGE [26]
Forest vegetation Humid Areas	Forest vegetation	Tropical woodland Tropical forest	Areas occupied by forests, which include areas of dense forest (forest structure with continuous top cover), Open Forest (forest structure with different degrees of discontinuity of the top cover, according to its type with vine, bamboo, palm, or sororoca), forest seasonal (forest structure with loss of leaves from the upper strata during the unfavorable season (dry and cold), in addition to the mixed rain forest (forest structure that comprises the natural distribution area of Araucaria angustifolia, a striking element in the upper strata, which generally forms a cover to be continued). In addition to these, other features were included, such as Savannah Forest, Campinarana Forest, Campinarana Arborizada, and Mangroves, as well as humid areas, which correspond to natural herbaceous vegetation, permanently or periodically flooded with fresh or brackish water (estuaries, swamps, etc.). In these areas, the land of ponds, swamps, and humid fields are inserted, among others.
Natural pasture	Grassland vegetation	Extensive grassland Scrubland Savana	The area is occupied by grassland vegetation subjected to grazing and other low-intensity anthropogenic interference.
Pasture planted	Pasture planted	Grassland-steppe	The area is predominantly occupied by cultivated herbaceous vegetation. They are places for cattle grazing, formed by planting perennial forages, subject to high-intensity anthropic interference, such as clearing the land (unblocking and cutting), liming, and fertilizing.
Agriculture	Agriculture	Agricultural land Biofuels	Areas occupied by temporary crops and permanent crops, irrigated or not, being land used for the production of food, fiber and agribusiness commodities. It includes all cultivated land, which may be planted or at rest, as well as a cultivated wetland. This can be represented by heterogeneous agricultural zones or extensive plantations.
Mosaic of agricultural area with forest remnants	Mosaic of occupation	Warm mixed forest	Mosaic of small-scale agricultural activities and remnants of natural vegetation (e.g., subsistence agriculture).
Mosaic of forest vegetation with agricultural activity
Mosaic of agricultural areas with grassland remnants
Forestry	Forestry	Regrowth forest timber	forests planted and managed with exotic species (e.g., eucalyptus and pine).
Artificial area	Others	Not considered	Artificial surfaces (e.g., cities, villages, transport routes, energy and communication networks) and bodies of water and bare lands (e.g., rock outcrops, dunes, cliffs).
Bare land
Inland water bodies
Coastal water bodies

Fig 1

Schematic representation of the development of regional land use and land cover scenarios.

Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and Representative Concentration Pathway (RCPs).

2.2 Scenario assumptions: From global to regional

The SSPs are based on five different development paths for societal trends (Table 2: i.e., sustainable development (SSP1), middle of the road developments (SSP2), global fragmentation (SSP3), strong inequality (SSP4), and rapid economic growth based on a fossil-fuel intensive energy system (SSP5). They were designed to represent different degrees of challenges in mitigation and adaptation. Each SSPs has been elaborated in a storyline and quantified using Integrated Assessment Models (IAM), such as IMAGE. The five SSP storylines can also be combined with alternative assumptions about climate mitigation, forming a matrix of alternative scenarios. Therefore, each SSP has a baseline scenario implementation and additional scenarios combining the storyline to climate mitigation policies compatible with certain levels of CO2 concentration, and consequently, climate change. These mitigation assumptions are linked to RCPs, meaning the atmosphere’s expected radiative forcing in 2100 (W m-2). Each of the four RCPs has a different forcing at the end of the 21st century and is named according to its forcing level in 2100: RCP1.9 (1.9 W m-2), RCP2.6 (3 W m-2), RCP4.5 (4.5 W m-2), RCP6.0 (6.0 W m-2), RCP7.0 (7.0 W m-2) and RCP8.5 (8.5 W m-2). For instance, the RCP 2.6 assumes a 3 W m-2 peak before 2100 and a decline to 2.6 W m-2 by 2100.

Table 2

Synthesis of core premises differentiating the SSPs in relation to land use.

Source: Popp et al. [29].

	SSP 1	SSP 2	SSP 3	SSP 4	SSP 5
Land-use change regulation	Strong regulation to avoid environmental tradeoffs	Medium regulation; slow decline in the rate of deforestation	Limited regulation; continued deforestation	Highly regulated in medium-income (MICs) and high-income (HICs) countries; lack of regulation in low-income countries (LICs) lead to high deforestation rates	Medium regulation, slow decline in the rate of deforestation
Land productivity growth	High improvements in agricultural productivity; Rapid diffusion of best practices	Medium pace of technological change	Low technology development	High productivity for large-scale industrial farming, low for small-scale farming	Highly managed, resource-intensive; rapid increase in productivity
Environmental Impact of Food Consumption	Low Growth in Food Consumption, Low-Meat Diets	Material-Intensive Consumption, Medium Meat Consumption	Resource-Intensive Consumption	Elites: High-consumption Lifestyles; Rest: Low Consumption	Material-Intensive Consumption
International Trade	Moderate	Moderate	Strongly constrained	Moderate	High, with regional specialization in production
Globalization	Connected markets, regional production	Semi-open globalized economy	De-globalizing, regional security	Globally connected elites	Strongly globalized
Land-based mitigation policies	No delay in international cooperation for climate change mitigation Full participation of the land-use sector	Delayed international cooperation for climate change mitigation Partial participation of the land-use sector	Heavily delayed international cooperation for climate change mitigation. Limited participation of the land-use sector	No delay in international cooperation for climate change mitigation Partial participation of the land-use sector	Delayed international cooperation for climate change mitigation Full participation in the land-use sector

In our regionalized scenarios, we adopted the following combinations: SSP1 RCP 1.9, SSP2 RCP 4.5, and SSP3 RCP 7.0 (Table 3). In particular, the sustainable development scenario (SSP1) combined with stringent climate policy (RCP 1.9) is a scenario exploring the route toward a more sustainable world, providing an initial framework for our analysis of sustainability pathways. However, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have not been targeted in its development [20]. Mitigation scenarios that achieve the ambitious targets included in the Paris Agreement typically rely on greenhouse gas emission reductions combined with net carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere, mostly accomplished through the large-scale application of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, and afforestation (e.g., [16, 28]).

Table 3

Detailed regional assumptions related to Sustainable development scenario, middle of the road, and strong inequality scenario.

Quantification element		Sustainable development scenario SSP1 RCP 1.9	Middle of the road scenario SSP2 RCP 4.5	Strong inequality scenario SSP3 RCP 7.0
(a) (Environmental) Law enforcement		Forest Code Restoration (Legal reserves (LR) and Permanent protection areas (PPA)) and Conservation measures are enforced, incentivized, and even surpassed, promoting a Forest Transition process 2030. Protected areas are fully implemented and respected.	Forest Code Restoration (Legal reserves (LR) and Permanent protection areas (PPA)) measures are satisfied by compensation mechanisms, such as remote forest quotas, instead of local restoration. Forest code conservation measures are respected, and deforestation control mechanisms occur.	Forest Code is not respected, and deforestation control measures are discontinued. Protected areas were not fully implemented or protected.
(b) Changes in spatial drivers	Roads network	No major federal or state roads were built after 2020.	Same as Scenario C, but accompanied with measures to avoid uncontrolled occupation.	Ongoing paving concluded in 2025 (BR-163, BR-319, and BR-230). All paving and planned roads (Federal and State) were built and distributed by 2025, 2030, and 2040, respectively.
	Rural settlements	Existing settlements are maintained, and non-conventional ones (sustainable) are well protected.	Existing settlements are maintained, but the non-conventional ones (sustainable) are less protected than Scenario A.	Rural settlements are canceled, and their areas become private property.
	Protected areas—PAs	Maintenance of the 2016 protected areas network. Fully protected.	Same as Scenario A in terms of area, but less protected in more densely occupied areas.	Decrease in the extension and level of protection of UCs by 2030. Maintenance of Regularized and Approved Indigenous Land

The premises of the regional scenario are based on the framework developed in the AMAZALERT project for the Brazilian Amazon [20], in line with the SSPs and RCPs described above. The scenarios range from low to high social development and high to low environmental development (Fig 2). We define high environmental development as the responsible management of natural resources (e.g., environmental stewardship), which includes high quality and equal access to services, opportunities, and resources supported by strong institutions.

Fig 2

Representation of LuccMEBR scenarios.

The sustainable development scenario (SSP1 RCP 1.9) assumes that all existing environmental laws are in place and policies to reduce deforestation, encourage environmental restoration, and preserve PAs and ILs. In this scenario, Brazil is gradually moving, like the world, toward a more sustainable path, emphasizing a more inclusive development that respects perceived environmental limits. Just as investments in education and health accelerate the demographic transition, the emphasis on economic growth human well-being. Inequality is reduced, and consumption is oriented toward low material growth, less resource and energy use, and healthier and less wasteful diets.

In the middle of the road scenario (SSP2 RCP 4.5), we assume that some of the positive trends in the last decade will be maintained. Still, they do not reach the full potential of an integrated socioeconomic, institutional, and environmental perspective. In this context, conservation, agricultural and extractive policies and initiatives continue to be a source of tension and contradiction. Forest governance remains centralized, with the national government playing an important role in decision-making. In line with global challenges, development and income growth occur unevenly, despite some institutions working to achieve SDGs. Despite some improvements and advances in combating this problem, degradation of environmental systems is still present. Regarding the use of resources and energy, there was a slight decrease, and population growth remained moderate.

The strong inequality scenario (SSP3 RCP 7.0) reflects a weakening of efforts in recent years, mainly in the socio-environmental dimension. As in the rest of the world, nationalism is resurgent, concerns about competitiveness and security, and regional conflicts. Policies change over time to become increasingly oriented toward national and regional security issues. Countries focus on achieving energy and food security goals in their regions at the expense of broader-based development. Investments in education and technological developments have decreased. Economic development is slow, and consumption is material-intensive. In this context, inequalities persist or worsen over time. Population tends to increase and environmental degradation intensifies mainly because of the low national and international priorities to address environmental issues.

2.3 LuccME model parameterization and validation

2.3.1 Demand component

We use the LuccME component, in which we externally calculate demand and report the expected area for each land-use class annually from 2000 to 2050 (Table 4). As described above, we used the amount of change projected by IMAGE. We adjusted it to the IBGE land use and land cover classes for the SSP1/RCP1.9, SSP2/RCP4.5, and SSP3/RCP7.0 combinations to generate the annual demand for each land-use class in each scenario between 2015 and 2050.

Table 4

Land demand parameters.

PreComputed values		SSP1 RCP 1.9		SSP2 RCP 4.5		SSP3 RCP 7.0
Forest vegetation	from	3,771,677	km ² (2000)	3,771,677	km ² (2000)	3,771,677	km ² (2000)
	to	4,232,402	km ² (2050)	2,975,314	km ² (2050)	2,846,765	km ² (2050)
Grassland vegetation	from	2,112,947	km ² (2000)	2,112,947	km ² (2000)	2,112,947	km ² (2000)
	to	1,517,633	km ² (2050)	1,012,637	km ² (2050)	772,878	km ² (2050)
Pasture planted	from	402,529	km ² (2000)	402,529	km ² (2000)	402,529	km ² (2000)
	to	445,974	km ² (2050)	670,850	km ² (2050)	714,860	km ² (2050)
Agricultural area	from	624,941	km ² (2000)	624,941	km ² (2000)	624,941	km ² (2000)
	to	328,444	km ² (2050)	856,018	km ² (2050)	1,077,091	km ² (2050)
Mosaic of occupations	from	1,405,301	km ² (2000)	1,405,301	km ² (2000)	1,405,301	km ² (2000)
	to	1,822,044	km ² (2050)	2,788,498	km ² (2050)	2,873,629	km ² (2050)
Forestry	from	55,983	km ² (2000)	55,983	km ² (2000)	55,983	km ² (2000)
	to	26,881	km ² (2050)	70,060	km ² (2050)	88,154	km ² (2050)

Eq 1 presents the calculation of the annual change for each class of land use and land cover in the area unit. where corresponds to the annual change in area of the land use class between the initial and end year of the chosen period, and refers to the number of years in the period.

The calculation of the annual demand of the land use class is represented by Eq 2: where corresponds to the annual demand of a given land use class in a given year , calculated from the sum of the class area in the previous year , and the annual change .

In the initial year, the value of the demand corresponds to the observed amount of the land-use class, calculated based on the use and land cover data used; in this case, the land use and land cover change data from IBGE [26].

2.3.2 Potential and allocation component parametrization: Intraregional and local spatial drivers

The LuccME component is used to determine the potential occurrence of a given land use cover class, as well as the (Eq 3), which is based on and adapted from the spatial regression model (spatial lag) [23-25]. In this component, the influence of neighboring areas is considered to occur. This is an intrinsic feature of land use and land cover changes. In addition, this component allows this potential to be dynamic over the modeled period, that is, every year. where corresponds to the potential for the occurrence of a given land use class in a given location in a given time step . To determine the potential, the percentage of use estimated by the regression is subtracted from the percentage of existing use at time .

To calculate the potential, the variables potentially explaining the process of changing land use and coverage in different Brazilian biomes were divided into four categories: agronomic aspects (composed of climatological and geophysical variables), agrarian structure (percentage of the area of agricultural establishments), economic aspects (dependent on structural variables: distance from highways, ports, airports, railways, urban centers, rivers, etc.), and restrictive aspects (related to legal limitations: protected areas, conservation units, rural settlements, distance to hydroelectric and thermoelectric in operation). All candidate variables were integrated into regular 10 km × 10 km cells for the spatially explicit analysis, taking as base years 2000 and 2010 (Fig 3). For this, the was used [30]. The use of cellular space made it possible to homogenize the factors described above, regardless of their origin format (vector data, matrix data, etc.), aggregating them on the same space-time basis, through operators (e.g., percentage of each class, minimum distance, etc.) used according to the geometric representation and the semantics of the attributes of the input data.

Fig 3

Representation of the factors integration into the cellular space.

a) Hydroelectric plants, b) Protected areas, c) Federal and State highways, and d) Proportion of large agricultural establishments. The source of States boundaries is according to IBGE [31].

Searching for a model that involves the minimum of possible parameters to be estimated and explains well the behavior of land use in each Brazilian biome, some statistical techniques were used to evaluate the effectiveness and adequacy of the best model: a priori, Spearman’s correlation analysis selected only those factors that presented a correlation coefficient below or equal to 0.60; second, with the new composition of candidate variables, a spatial regression analysis was performed (Spatial Lag [24, 25]), considering the determination coefficient (R2 > 0.75, in the average of uses) as decision parameters; statistical significance (p-value < 0.05) and Akaike information criterion (AIC) (lowest values obtained). The calibration of the model was carried out using observational data contained in the land use and land cover maps of IBGE in 2000, 2010, 2012, and 2014.

The allocation of land-use change in each scenario was based on the application of the LuccME allocation component based on the CLUE [32], which was distributed spatially and interactively according to the previous components (demand and potential), based on competition between the types of land use in each cell and within a previously established maximum error. For the parameterization of this component, the Forest Code rules regarding the amount of legal reserve required according to the regions of the Brazilian territory were also considered. The allocation process for each type of land use or land cover can be described using Eq 4. where the amount of area allocated from a given class of land use at a given location in the cell plane at time is determined in an iterative process of the sum of at time and the potential multiplied by an adjustment factor proportional to the difference between the allocated area, the reported demand, and the direction of the change .

The parameterization details according to potential (), Allocation (), and demand () components are presented in the supplementary material S1 and S2 Appendices.

2.3.3 Model validation

The results of the simulations were validated by the multiresolution adjustment validation metric, adapted from Costanza [33], and Pontius Jr [34]. This metric allows establishing the level of similarity between the simulated and real maps at different resolutions through sampling windows that increase with each step of time; therefore, this approach allows the evaluation of both location errors in the resolution of the model itself and spatial pattern errors, degrading the resolution of maps. This metric is particularly useful for characterizing land use and land cover change and for validating land use, and land cover change models [34]. The similarity level can be calculated according to Eq 5: where corresponds to the level of similarity between the real and simulated maps at a given resolution ; is the window/cells considered; establishes the number of windows/cells to be considered; textitc is the number of cells in a resolution (i*i); and = % realtf − % realti and = % simtfinal − % realinitial being and the initial and real years, respectively, considered in the validation.

3 Data records

The dataset provides 35 maps of the spatial distribution of land use and coverage for Brazil between 2000 and 2050, considering the scenarios discussed above. The data are made available in the SIRGAS2000 Polychronic Projection System with Datum (EPSG 5880). The file is available in Zenodo (https://zenodo.org/record/5123560) [35] in NetCDF format. The data set contains maps with the percentage of forest vegetation, grassland vegetation, managed pasture, agriculture, mosaic of occupation, and forestry in 10 km × 10 km cells.

4 Model performance

Figs 4 and 5 present the spatial distribution of the use classes and the dissimilarity between the observed and simulated data in the validation year 2014. The performance of the LuccMEBR model was satisfactory, with an average spatial fit index, between the observed and simulated data in 2014, of 84.44% when comparing the patterns of both maps (Table 5). When considering only the areas where some change occurred, the adjustment index was 52.55% for each land-use type. The average percentage of adjustment errors corresponding to omissions was 6.80%, while commission errors were approximately 6.39%. Among the land use and land cover classes, the highest general spatial adjustment values were observed for Forest vegetation, Grassland vegetation, Agriculture, and Planted pasture.

Fig 4

Percentage of forest vegetation, grassland vegetation and pasture planted observed versus simulated in 10 x 10 km² cells in 2014 and the spatial distribution of errors of omission and commission.

The source of States boundaries is according to IBGE [31].

Fig 5

Percentage of Agriculture, Mosaic of occupation and Forestry observed versus simulated in 10 x 10 km² cells in 2014 and the spatial distribution of errors of omission and commission.

The source of States boundaries is according to IBGE [31].

Table 5

Percentage of spatial adjustment and errors.

	Spatial adjustment		Errors
	Patterns	Modified areas	Omissions	Commission
	%
Forest vegetation	95.45	58.91	7.03	5.83
Grassland vegetation	87.24	61.82	11.42	9.03
Planted pasture	81.75	56.46	6.63	7.97
Agriculture	85.28	53.22	4.53	4.09
Mosaic of occupation	82.42	39.27	7.23	8.57
Forestry	74.48	45.63	3.94	2.83
Average	84.44	52.55	6.80	6.39

5 Usage notes

The data on land use and coverage presented for the entire Brazilian territory comes from an effort to align the development of regional scenarios with the structure of global scenarios (RCP–SSP–SPA) were developed by the IPCC. Despite the important challenges that this alignment adds to the development of these scenarios, which are: (i) the additional complexity in capturing the multiple dimensions of change and (ii) the issues of scale [36], the results obtained from this process have greater consistency between the different spatial and temporal scales of interest. In addition, the development and study of regional scenarios help policymakers and the scientific community to develop robust strategies in the face of uncertain futures and evaluate and improve the feasibility, flexibility, and concreteness of their actions [37-41]. Fig 6 shows the spatially explicit distribution of the classes of use in the initial year of the simulation (2000) and the three scenarios considered. It can be seen that the middle of the road and strong inequality scenarios present similar patterns in all classes of use, with emphasis on the significant increase in the mosaic class of occupations, with intensification in the Caatinga and Atlantic Rainforest. Unlike the other scenarios, the regeneration of forest vegetation was observed in the sustainable development scenario, mostly in the Caatinga, Atlantic Rainforest, Cerrado, and Pampa biomes.

Fig 6

Spatial distribution of areas and land use according to the scenarios from 2000 to 2050.

The source of States boundaries is according to IBGE [31].

Analyzing the dynamics of LUCC (Table 6), according to the scenarios considered, has been observed; agriculture, the mosaic of occupation, as well as grassland vegetation will continue in the same direction, regardless of the scenario considered. Concerning the other classes, it can be seen that the sustainable development scenario is distinguished from the others, as well as in the spatial pattern observed in Fig 6.

Table 6

The direction of change in land use and coverage, according to classes and scenarios between 2000 and 2050.

↗ = Increase and ↘ = Reduction.

	Forest vegetation	Grassland vegetation	Planted pasture	Agriculture	Mosaic of occupation	Forestry
Sustainable development scenario SSP1 RCP 1.9	↗	↘	↘	↗	↗	↘
Middle of the road scenario SSP2 RCP 4.5	↘	↘	↗	↗	↗	↗
Strong inequality scenario SSP3 RCP 7.0	↘	↘	↗	↗	↗	↗

According to the middle of the road and strong inequality scenarios, forest vegetation will suffer a reduction of approximately 805,956 and 933,092 km², respectively, until 2050, mainly in the Amazon biome (673,066 and 762,739 km²), followed by the Cerrado biome (67,643 and 87,288 km²). However, in the sustainable development scenario, forest vegetation will increase, occupying 447,944 km². This increase occurs mostly in the Atlantic Forest (253,783 km²), Cerrado (200,489 km²), and Caatinga (168,572 km²) biomes, as shown in Fig 6. However, the Amazon biome will be reduced by 217,696 km² of forest vegetation, approximately 2/3 less than the values observed in the other scenarios. As shown in Fig 6 and Table 6, there is a reduction in grassland vegetation areas in both scenarios. Overall, in the strong inequality scenario, the reduction will be approximately 1,346,988 km², followed by the middle of the road scenario with 1,107,235 km² and the sustainable development scenario with 602,847 km². Equivalent to what will occur with Forest vegetation, this reduction will occur mainly in the Cerrado (586,575 km², on average) and Caatinga (303,419 km², on average) biomes. In an inverse to what will happen with forest vegetation, planted pasture and forestry will tend to increase their extension in the middle of the road and strong inequality scenarios (219,199 and 439,962 km², respectively). In contrast, in the sustainable development scenario, there will be a reduction of approximately 308.206 km². Despite the data showing an increase in agriculture and mosaic of occupation, regardless of the scenario considered, the increase will occur with greater intensity in the middle of the road and strong inequality scenarios, whereas in agriculture, the increase will be 259,892 and 303,781 km², respectively; in the mosaic of occupation, this increase will be 1,366,687 and 1,450,867 km², respectively. Although smaller, the increase in the sustainable development scenario will correspond to 34,973 km² in agriculture and 403,914 km² in the mosaic of occupation. It should be noted that the increase in the areas of planted pasture, forestry, and agriculture should occur in the Cerrado biome. In contrast, the mosaic of occupation will increase, mostly in the Amazon and Cerrado biomes.

This set of scenarios provides important information that can help establish public policies that aim to contribute to biodiversity conservation and reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation, especially those arising from land use and coverage changes. Furthermore, this set of scenarios with territorial extension for the whole of Brazil makes it possible to understand how decision-making and global demands can influence other regions.

The study demonstrated the benefits of a multidimensional scenario framework for integrating different land-use factors and land cover change. The inclusion of participatory methods that support the elaboration of participatory scenarios, with qualitative and quantitative components, can enrich the scenarios presented.

LuccMEBR: Scenario-dependent spatiotemporal drivers.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

LuccMEBR: Model parameters.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

5 Oct 2021

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Eda Ustaoglu, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)”

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section

4. We note that Figures 2, 3 and 4 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 2, 3 and 4 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper entitled as "New land use change scenarios for Brazil: refining global SSPs with a regional spatially-explicit allocation model" present a downscaled spatial model for estimating future of land use and cover change in Brazil. The authors have used both global and regional parameters to estimate and train the transition models for projecting the LULC data until 2050.

The paper is well written and easy to follow, while the authors have provided many details regarding their data, models used and presenting intermediate results. The paper can be accepted for publication, I would only recommend to the authors to address some of the points given below:

1. Please elaborate further the Model performance and the results obtained in Figure 3. As the overall data are projections the validation with existing and simulated data remains a critical parameter that needs to be discussed. If possible please provide more details (per class) and more statistics in this section (probably using a table).

2. 2.2 Scenario assumptions: from global to regional and especially the paragraph after line 92. Please provide more details of how you have elaborated the downscaling approach moving from global to regional approach. Why and how did you selected the “ SSP1 RCP 1.9, SSP2 RCP 4.5 and SSP3 RCP 7.0—table 3). This is something that needs to be further elaborated and discussed.

3. Future work and research direction from the authors would be appreciated. What is missing in the current study, are there any steps for the future in terms of improvements of the model

Overall this is an interesting work.

Reviewer #2: This is an important topic. This study develops new land use change scenarios by including the global structure and local factors. The paper is well written and easy to follow.

Some comments:

1. Please add the definitions of “global”, “local”, and “balance” here. Take the study area, Brazil, as our example, does the global scale here mean real “global”, America, or Latin America? Giving examples of global or local factor can help our readers understand this research problems and focus on the key issues.

2. The authors can add explanations of their scenarios in the abstract. For example, sustainable development scenario for SPP1 RCP 1.9, middle of the road scenario for SPP2 RCP 4.5, and strong inequality scenario for SPP3 RCP 7.0. Also, what is the number meaning after RCP?

3. This study includes many abbreviations, such as LUCC, LuccMEBR, IBGE, IMAGE, LuccME, INLAND, LR, and PPAS. The authors can provide a list in the appendix.

4. There is a reference citation error on line 123 page 6.

5. In table one, the description of some classes are very detailed, but some are more generalized. Is there a specific reason?

6. For the study method, the authors used a validation matric (equation 5) to test the similarity between the real and simulated maps. Is this the most common method because the reference paper is 1989. Also, what is the range of this NS index and how to explain it?

7. Please increase resolution of figure 3 and 4.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

30 Dec 2021

Reviewer n. 1

Question: 1 . Please elaborate further the Model performance and the results obtained in Figure 3. As the overall data are projections the validation with existing and simulated data remains a critical parameter that needs to be discussed. If possible please provide more details (per class) and more statistics in this section (probably using a table).

Answer: We appreciate the suggestion. We inserted a table (Table 5) quantifying the performance for each land use and land cover class.

Question: 2. 2.2 Scenario assumptions: from global to regional, and especially the paragraph after line 92. Please provide more details of how you have elaborated the downscaling approach moving from global to regional approach. Why and how did you selected the “ SSP1 RCP 1.9, SSP2 RCP 4.5 and SSP3 RCP 7.0—table 3). This is something that needs to be further elaborated and discussed.

Answer: We appreciate the observation and suggestion. We have inserted the storylines for clarity. Line 106-152

Question: 3. Future work and research direction from the authors would be appreciated. What is missing in the current study, are there any steps for the future in terms of improvements of the model.

Answer: Thanks for the suggestion. We have included a paragraph (L318-321 ) indicating the importance of developing participatory scenarios in the future.

Reviewer n. 2

Question: 1. Please add the definitions of “global”, “local”, and “balance” here. Take the study area, Brazil, as our example, does the global scale here mean real “global”, America, or Latin America? Giving examples of global or local factor can help our readers understand this research problems and focus on the key issues.

Answer: Thanks for the suggestion. We have included a paragraph (L47-57) defining the three scales considered in developing the regional scenarios along with examples of factors/drivers.

Question: 2. The authors can add explanations of their scenarios in the abstract. For example, sustainable development scenario for SPP1 RCP 1.9, middle of the road scenario for SPP2 RCP 4.5, and strong inequality scenario for SPP3 RCP 7.0. Also, what is the number meaning after RCP?

Answer: Thanks for the suggestion. The numbers refer to the forcing for each RCP, the range of radiative forcing values in the year 2100. Radiative forcing is the change in the net, downward minus upward, radiative flux (expressed in watts per square meter; W m-2) at the tropopause or top of atmosphere due to a change in an external driver of climate change, such as a change in the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) or the output of the sun. We entered the radiative forcing values for each RCP. Line 104-108.

Question: 3. This study includes many abbreviations, such as LUCC, LuccMEBR, IBGE, IMAGE, LuccME, INLAND, LR, and PPAS. The authors can provide a list in the appendix.

Answer: Thanks for the suggestion. Done. Line 331

Question:: 4. There is a reference citation error on line 123 page 6.

Answer: Thanks for the observation. Done. Line 173

Question: 5. In table one, the description of some classes are very detailed, but some are more generalized. Is there a specific reason?.

Answer: Thanks for the observation. The descriptions correspond to the classification and original description of the IBGE land use and land cover classes. Furthermore, some of them have a greater diversity of elements in their compositions. We have inserted the related reference to the description. Table 1

Question: 6. For the study method, the authors used a validation matric (equation 5) to test the similarity between the real and simulated maps. Is this the most common method because the reference paper is 1989. Also, what is the range of this NS index and how to explain it?

Answer: Thanks for the observation. Multiscale analysis is crucial for generating land use and land cover change models as well as their validation. Thus, the metrics adopted for validation should establish the level of similarity between simulated and real maps at different resolutions. For this reason, we adopted the multiscale similarity method adapted from Costanza (1989) and Pontius (2002). It allows both location errors in the resolution of the model itself and spatial pattern errors, degrading the resolution of the maps. We have added a reference to Pontius to the manuscript and rewritten the paragraph to clarify the importance of choosing this metric. Line 229-237. As for the range, the NS value can range from 0\\% (no similarity) to 100\\% (completely similar).

Question: 7. Please increase resolution of figure 3 and 4.

Answer: About the original Fig. 3, we divided it to allow better visualization. Fig. 3 is now represented in Figs. 4 and 5. As for the original Fig. 4, we grouped it; however, we increased the font size and partially restructured it. We chose these formats to avoid an excessive number of figures.

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

8 Mar 2022

New land-use change scenarios for Brazil: refining global SSPs with a regional spatially-explicit allocation model

PONE-D-21-24083R1

Dear Dr. Gilney Silva Bezerra,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Eda Ustaoglu, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed all me previous comments, providing in this version further details regarding the statistical analysis (Table 5) and details (hypothesis) for the scenario selected. The paper can be accepted, as it will make significant contribution to the research area.

Reviewer #2: The Authors have addressed all of my concerns with the original manuscript. The revised manuscript is ready for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

24 Mar 2022

PONE-D-21-24083R1

New land-use change scenarios for Brazil: refining global SSPs with a regional spatially-explicit allocation model

Dear Dr. Silva Bezerra:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Eda Ustaoglu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE